LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
There was one at the site of Sea-Tac airport too.
Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film
- Thread starter Skeptical Greg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot film patterson gimlin
- Status
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
There is a Clovis campsite in Oregon. The Dietz site.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
There is a Clovis site in Washington State. The East Wenatchee site.
UrsulaV
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 956
There's a Coastal Salish site called Xá:ytem in British Columbia, which, if I may quote the website indexing part of the collection, ( http://collections.ic.gc.ca/salish/artifact/index.htm ) "Xá:ytem is an ancient settlement with evidence of occupation as early as 9 000 years ago. The remains of at least one house structure dated between 5 300 and 5 600 years old are the earliest known house remains in North America." Thousands of stone artifacts have also been recovered, many of which are indexed on-line. (This site at http://www.xaytem.museum.bc.ca/artifact.htm even has snazzy photos of some of the stone tools.)
UrsulaV
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 956
Heck, the Mammoth Park dig in Woodburn starts off their introduction by proclaiming "Mammoth Park may be the oldest stratified paleoarchaeological site in the Pacific Northwest." (Bold added for Huntster's benefit, since he seemed to enjoy it so much...)
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/schwert/qel/woodburn/woodbrn.htm
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/schwert/qel/woodburn/woodbrn.htm
UrsulaV
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 956
As a complete aside, it occurs to me, as I dig through the website of the Oregon Archaological Society (who would, I suspect, be rather astonished to learn that there is no archaeology of any kind in the Pacific Northwest.) that if my research papers in college had been phrased in terms of "Prove this sweeping statement by someone you find objectionable wrong," I would've graduated summa cum laude. Nothin' like spite to get you diggin' through the files!
Orthoptera
Scholar
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 118
Just a couple of things here, nothing I'm claiming as particularly original. First, the bigfoot phenomenon, originally a sort of tall tale, has clearly taken on all the hallmarks of a classic belief system, based on a mystery. That is to say, one doesn't think there is a bigfoot, one believes it: faith is the measure by which sasquatchers are judged.
One clear clue of a belief system: evidence and logic that objectively sheds doubt on the existence of bigfoot is instead seized upon by believers as evidence for that very existence. If you point out that the stories of bigfoot encounters resemble in every detail the narratives of the centuries-old "green-man" in England, for example, you will be told that, see, Sasquatch lived in England, too. Suggest the "verified" footprint looks exactly like a fake foot presented by the hoaxer, bigfooters will tell you the hoaxer must have carefully modeled real Sasquatch footprints. Can't be tracked by dogs? See how terrifying and clever?, despite the fact that no one has ever been been verifiably attacked or killed by one of these monsters, and that people routinely hunt bears with dogs, surely no less dangerous or woodcrafty.
Every discrepancy will elicit an answer, no matter how unlikely, since this is not a negotiation of reason, but a matter of faith. The most jaw-dropping disconnect, to me, is the dual assertion that Bigfoot is a secretive, shy, and crafty creature of the deepest forests of the PNW that also, amazingly, aggressively and promiscuously haunts such wildernesses as Iowa and Connecticut, and can be easily lured (just out of camera range) by the simplest ruses. It's both vanishingly rare and ubiquitous as a coyote. Obviously, not every bigfoot believer can live in the apparent Holy Land of Ore-Wash-BC, but that doesn't mean they can't thrill to their own local piece of the action; just as Jesus came to Glastonbury, thus we have sasquatch hunters in probably every state of the union. As the Chupacabra stories spread north (and bigfooters may want to add wings to Sasquatch if they want to keep up in the mystery creature arms race), one imagines new tensions between rival camps: did the horrible screeches and glowing eyes in the dark come from Bigfoot, or Chupa? And can they mate?
So how does this relate to the Patterson film? As others have mentioned, to most of the world, this few seconds of film with dubious authors, origins, and provenances looks exactly like a guy in a suit. It did to me, disappointingly, when I first saw it as a kid who was firmly convinced of Bigfoot's existence at the time. But to believers, it's scrutinized, parsed, discussed, and held as up as the best evidence for their faith; questioning its legitimacy strikes at the very core of belief, despite the fact that many Bigfoot witnesses describe a different appearance, and despite that in the intervening 40 years nothing similar has been produced. One would think the fact that the original film is mysteriously unavailable, held back for
obvious financial reasons, would be enough for most believers to either toss it as fraudulent or clamor for its release, but that's not generally the case. And the answer why not is fairly clear, again having to do with belief. No one likes their pet belief system kicked over; a bit of comfortable ignorance is infinitely preferable to the disturbing effects of doubt.
So all of the above is perfectly understandable, and really, no harm done. What I think is interesting is the confusion between the goal of many bigfooters and the results of that goal. Simply put, if Sasquatch was found, captured, or otherwise acceptably identified, which is as I understand it the general focus of most sasquatchery, what would the Bigfoot crowd do? The foundation of their faith would be destroyed, since the mystery would be over. Would they suddenly train as biologists or anthropologists to exploit the discovery? Is there a Otter Encounters website? Would they clamor for
protection for a creature that obviously doesn't need it, or hunting privileges for an animal that apparently can't be hunted?
And of course the Patterson film would lose all value, except as a historical curiosity. Either it would shown to be a fake, or it would be validated but useless. I don't see organizations minutely dissecting shaky old films of distant bears.
It's a modern theological mistake, I think, to put faith in a mystery that has even the remote possibility of being solved. Most belief systems are conveniently and explicitly unverifiable; that's where the whole concept of faith gets its value. So as long as no Sasquatch is found, everything is fine; you've got the thrills of mystery, the haunting campfire tales, the
tantalizing glimpses of a secret world, even your sacred relics like the P-G film. But imagine the disastrous consequences if one were found, and faith becomes superfluous. Your birthright stolen by scientists! Every night bigfoot believers ( and most vehemently whoever owns the Patterson film rights) should be whispering for their hairy saint to be revealed, "but not tomorrow, Lord, not tomorrow."
One clear clue of a belief system: evidence and logic that objectively sheds doubt on the existence of bigfoot is instead seized upon by believers as evidence for that very existence. If you point out that the stories of bigfoot encounters resemble in every detail the narratives of the centuries-old "green-man" in England, for example, you will be told that, see, Sasquatch lived in England, too. Suggest the "verified" footprint looks exactly like a fake foot presented by the hoaxer, bigfooters will tell you the hoaxer must have carefully modeled real Sasquatch footprints. Can't be tracked by dogs? See how terrifying and clever?, despite the fact that no one has ever been been verifiably attacked or killed by one of these monsters, and that people routinely hunt bears with dogs, surely no less dangerous or woodcrafty.
Every discrepancy will elicit an answer, no matter how unlikely, since this is not a negotiation of reason, but a matter of faith. The most jaw-dropping disconnect, to me, is the dual assertion that Bigfoot is a secretive, shy, and crafty creature of the deepest forests of the PNW that also, amazingly, aggressively and promiscuously haunts such wildernesses as Iowa and Connecticut, and can be easily lured (just out of camera range) by the simplest ruses. It's both vanishingly rare and ubiquitous as a coyote. Obviously, not every bigfoot believer can live in the apparent Holy Land of Ore-Wash-BC, but that doesn't mean they can't thrill to their own local piece of the action; just as Jesus came to Glastonbury, thus we have sasquatch hunters in probably every state of the union. As the Chupacabra stories spread north (and bigfooters may want to add wings to Sasquatch if they want to keep up in the mystery creature arms race), one imagines new tensions between rival camps: did the horrible screeches and glowing eyes in the dark come from Bigfoot, or Chupa? And can they mate?
So how does this relate to the Patterson film? As others have mentioned, to most of the world, this few seconds of film with dubious authors, origins, and provenances looks exactly like a guy in a suit. It did to me, disappointingly, when I first saw it as a kid who was firmly convinced of Bigfoot's existence at the time. But to believers, it's scrutinized, parsed, discussed, and held as up as the best evidence for their faith; questioning its legitimacy strikes at the very core of belief, despite the fact that many Bigfoot witnesses describe a different appearance, and despite that in the intervening 40 years nothing similar has been produced. One would think the fact that the original film is mysteriously unavailable, held back for
obvious financial reasons, would be enough for most believers to either toss it as fraudulent or clamor for its release, but that's not generally the case. And the answer why not is fairly clear, again having to do with belief. No one likes their pet belief system kicked over; a bit of comfortable ignorance is infinitely preferable to the disturbing effects of doubt.
So all of the above is perfectly understandable, and really, no harm done. What I think is interesting is the confusion between the goal of many bigfooters and the results of that goal. Simply put, if Sasquatch was found, captured, or otherwise acceptably identified, which is as I understand it the general focus of most sasquatchery, what would the Bigfoot crowd do? The foundation of their faith would be destroyed, since the mystery would be over. Would they suddenly train as biologists or anthropologists to exploit the discovery? Is there a Otter Encounters website? Would they clamor for
protection for a creature that obviously doesn't need it, or hunting privileges for an animal that apparently can't be hunted?
And of course the Patterson film would lose all value, except as a historical curiosity. Either it would shown to be a fake, or it would be validated but useless. I don't see organizations minutely dissecting shaky old films of distant bears.
It's a modern theological mistake, I think, to put faith in a mystery that has even the remote possibility of being solved. Most belief systems are conveniently and explicitly unverifiable; that's where the whole concept of faith gets its value. So as long as no Sasquatch is found, everything is fine; you've got the thrills of mystery, the haunting campfire tales, the
tantalizing glimpses of a secret world, even your sacred relics like the P-G film. But imagine the disastrous consequences if one were found, and faith becomes superfluous. Your birthright stolen by scientists! Every night bigfoot believers ( and most vehemently whoever owns the Patterson film rights) should be whispering for their hairy saint to be revealed, "but not tomorrow, Lord, not tomorrow."
Z
Variable Constant
Well said, Orthoptera, and welcome to the forum!Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Great first post Orthoptera !! You have been nominated for the January language award..
Watch how your points are ignored, and the very behaviour you so clearly elucidate become manifest..
We have left few stones unturned in our BF discussions, but if you bother to hack your way through them, you will see those same stones flipped over again and again..
I'm sure your take could add some interesting insight ..
Watch how your points are ignored, and the very behaviour you so clearly elucidate become manifest..
We have left few stones unturned in our BF discussions, but if you bother to hack your way through them, you will see those same stones flipped over again and again..
I'm sure your take could add some interesting insight ..
Z
Variable Constant
Heh, I nominated Orthoptra too... :shrug:
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Do tell.. How could he possibly know this ( resembles that of Great Apes ) ?
And this has been documented where, besides someone's imagination ?
Some of Bindernagle's wisdom. http://www.bigfootbiologist.org/page6.html
Can the Bigfoot butt be far behind ? One cast and counting..
A couple of those cast photos look like Rogerfoot to me.. I'll throw up a side-by-side later.. ( if no one beats me to it )
I notice how no one has suggested that Roger surgically altered his feet to look like real Bigfoot tracks.. Now why is that ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see you totally missed my point about posting in " Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology ".. ( Can you say ' obtuse ' ? )
I have no doubt you could hold your own in any number of scientific discussions. But in case you haven't noticed, the subject of Bigfoot doesn't qualify ...
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Yes, and I saw you beat me to it when I nominated..
Great minds think alike.. No ?
Z
Variable Constant
Yes, and I saw you beat me to it when I nominated..
Great minds think alike.. No ?
OK... so what's our excuse?
Hey, it's probably the finest post in this entire bloated, overdone thread.
You know, most mods would have put this one in its grave months ago... Kudos to our JREF mod staff for being too lazy to be bothered.
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
If I had the names I would post them. I don't have the names of all those campers hunters and berry pickers, either. Considering what happened to Freeman's ranger job after his sighting, it doesn't surprise me that some witnesses wish to remain anonymous.
Perhaps he was the only wildlife biologist who examined tracks in situ with time, interest and resources to gather enough material for a book.
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
I wouldn't post on this on those threads because the topic, for some strange reason, is in this section. I didn't miss the point (there's that word again; I think it applies to you more than it does to me). How long do you think your mockery would be tolerated there?
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
Yakima's dry. Elk bones lie in piles in eastern Washington, but they're seldom to never found in the forests.
Mammoths were creatures of the open grassland. Why would anyone expect a forest-dweller to be associated with them?
Last edited:
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
To whom it may concern: Read my posts over the last eight months to see how I "acted" toward this poster and how he "acted" toward me. I thought I was exceptionally patient with him.
I went with Krantz' estimate, not Glickman's. Notice how the rest of the report, the result of three years work, gets ignored.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
UrsulaV
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 956
Actually, not all of them. You're thinking of the famous steppe mammoth, but a number of species of mammoth are believed to be forest dwellers. The ancestral mammoth is believed to be a critter of the African tropical woodlands. Mammuthus meridionalis lived in a heavily forested Europe and ate bark, trees, fruit, leaves, etc. Palaeoloxodon antiquus the straight-tusked elephant, also lived in warmer and much more heavily forested areas than the steppe mammoth.
The famous woolly mammoth may have been a critter of the open grasslands, but many mammoths did, in fact, live in forests of one variety or another.
http://www.oum.ox.ac.uk/educate/mamteach.pdf
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Here is a picture of one of the casts from Bindernagle's site, next to the photo of Roger Patterson's foot..
http://www.bigfootbiologist.org/page6.html
I stretched Rogers foot ( on the left ) to align with the 14' Patty track..
Of course we can't prove that the Patty track was made by a mold of Roger's foot, but one would have to be in deep denial to not see the possibility..
But let's say the cast is from a real Bigfoot print. Anyone care to explain why the track is indistinguishable from a human foot?
Where are the special features that tell us this print could not have been made by a human ? ( disregarding the unusual length )
Bindernagle goes into a lot of detail about how the unique features of Bigfoot tracks prove they are from this animal.. He seems to have ignored these unique features when looking at the most famous bigfoot tracks of all..
http://www.bigfootbiologist.org/page6.html
I stretched Rogers foot ( on the left ) to align with the 14' Patty track..
Of course we can't prove that the Patty track was made by a mold of Roger's foot, but one would have to be in deep denial to not see the possibility..
But let's say the cast is from a real Bigfoot print. Anyone care to explain why the track is indistinguishable from a human foot?
Where are the special features that tell us this print could not have been made by a human ? ( disregarding the unusual length )
Bindernagle goes into a lot of detail about how the unique features of Bigfoot tracks prove they are from this animal.. He seems to have ignored these unique features when looking at the most famous bigfoot tracks of all..
- Status